Click here for Adobe Acrobat version
Click here for Microsoft Word version
********************************************************
NOTICE
********************************************************
This document was converted from Microsoft Word.
Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.
All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.
Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.
If you need the complete document, download the
Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version.
*****************************************************************
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of )
)
World Communications )
Satellite Systems, Inc. ) File No. EB-03-TC-177
)
) NAL/Acct. No. 200332170009
Apparent Liability for ) FRN: 0009553652
Forfeiture )
)
NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE
Adopted: January 13, 2004 Released: January 15,
2004
By the Commission:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for
Forfeiture (``NAL''),1 we find that World Communications
Satellite Systems, Inc. (``WCSS'') apparently willfully and
repeatedly violated section 258 of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended (the ``Act''),2 as well as Commission rules and
orders, by submitting changes of the preferred carriers of 10
consumers on 13 occasions without their authorization and
verification, a practice commonly known as ``slamming.''3 Based
upon our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding the
violations, we find WCSS apparently liable for a forfeiture in
the amount of $560,000. As explained below, we propose a
forfeiture of $80,000 for one apparent egregious violation and
$40,000 each for 12 other violations.
II. BACKGROUND
2. WCSS is a reseller of long distance telephone
service located in Champaign, Illinois.4 After receiving a large
number of consumer complaints against WCSS, the Enforcement
Bureau, along with the Public Utility Commission of Texas,
launched an investigation into the consumers' allegations of
slamming. The Public Utility Commission of Texas, which has
chosen to administer our slamming liability rules,5 forwarded
information on WCSS's activities to us.
A. The Complaints
3. All of the consumers who filed the complaints
that form the basis of this NAL maintain that they did not
authorize WCSS to change their preferred carriers, but that WCSS
nevertheless changed their preferred carriers to WCSS.6 For
illustrative purposes, we will profile two complaints that appear
to be representative of WCSS's marketing and verification
practices.
4. On March 4, 2003, Kerri Pedraza filed a
complaint with the Texas Public Utility Commission alleging that
WCSS changed her preferred carrier from Verizon to WCSS without
her authorization.7 In support of that complaint, Ms. Pedraza
filed a declaration, which stated in part:
I received a telephone call from a Verizon
representative in February, 2003 inquiring
why I had changed my long distance carrier.
I told the representative that I was
unaware of a change in service. When I
received my telephone bill dated February
16, 2003, I noticed unauthorized charges on
it from WCSS. One charge in particular was
for a long distance service set up fee
dated February 7, 2003. I called WCSS
about the charges. I was told by a WCSS
representative that they had a tape
recording as proof of me authorizing a
switch in my telephone service. I asked to
hear the tape. I was told that their voice
verification system was down for the rest
of the week.
Neither I nor anyone in my household gave
permission to have my long distance service
switched.8
5. On May 7, 2003, Dr. Horacio Pena filed a
complaint with the Texas Public Utility Commission alleging that
WCSS changed his preferred long distance carrier from SBC to WCSS
without his authorization.9 In support of that complaint, Dr.
Pena filed a declaration, which stated in part:
On March 19, 2003, I went out of the United
States to visit relatives in Columbia. When I
returned home from Columbia on April 21, 2003, I
had received my residential telephone bill for
March 2003. I noticed that the bill had long
distance charges from WCSS. I contacted SBC
regarding the matter. SBC agreed to switch my
service back without any charge.
I never gave WCSS permission to switch my long
distance service.10
B. The Investigation
6. On July 15, 2003, the Enforcement Bureau staff
sent a letter of inquiry to WCSS, attaching a list of 19
complainants who had alleged that WCSS had changed their
preferred carrier without authorization, and asking, among other
things, whether WCSS had changed these consumers' preferred
carriers since December 1, 2002.11 WCSS sent a response to the
Letter of Inquiry on September 16, 2003. In its response, WCSS
admitted that it had changed the preferred carrier of six
complainants, provided third-party verification tapes for four of
them, and claimed that it had not received tapes from its third-
party verification company for the remaining two, Kerri Pedraza
and Micaela Escoto. With respect to five other complainants
(Aurelio Baron, Blasa Cano, Efrain Juarbe, Enilsa Lora and John
Pichurko), WCSS claimed that ``WCSS records show that it did not
submit or execute orders for the individuals during the specified
time frame.'' With respect to Guadaloupe Castillo, Charles
Johnson Finance, Marco and Lisa Martinez and Marybel Ramirez,
WCSS claimed it ``has no records listing these individuals with
the BTNs provided for them.''12 With respect to Kenneth Munn,
Katia Paredes and John Yohana Saucedo, WCSS stated it ``does not
have any records relating to the named complainants.''
7. On July 15, 2003, Enforcement Bureau staff also
sent Letters of Inquiry to the local exchange carriers who serve
the complainants, inquiring whether the preferred carriers for
the 19 complainants had been changed after December 1, 2002, and
who executed the change.13 The local exchange carriers responded
by August 15, 2003.14 On August 19, 2003, our staff sent a Letter
of Inquiry to Qwest, the underlying long distance carrier whose
services WCSS resells, inquiring whether the preferred carriers
of the complainants identified by Verizon and SBC had been
changed since December 1, 2002, and who had requested the
change.15 Qwest requested confidential treatment of its
response (again other than with respect to WCSS) based on the
claim that the information was customer proprietary network
information subject to Section 222 of the Act.16 Therefore, we
shall discuss Qwest's response in Attachment A, which shall be
kept confidential at this time, except with respect to WCSS.17
III. DISCUSSION
8. Section 258 of the Act makes it unlawful for
any telecommunications carrier to ``submit or execute a change in
a subscriber's selection of a provider of telephone exchange
service or telephone toll service except in accordance with such
procedures as the Commission shall prescribe.''18 Section
64.1120 of the Commission's rules prescribes that no carrier
``shall submit a change on the behalf of a subscriber . . . prior
to obtaining: (i) Authorization from the subscriber, and (ii)
Verification of that authorization in accordance with the
procedures prescribed in this section.''19
9. The Commission's rules provide some latitude
in the methods carriers may use to verify carrier change
requests. The carrier may elect to verify that authorization
through one of three options: obtaining the consumer's written or
electronically signed authorization; setting up a toll free
number for the consumer to call for verification; or obtaining
authorization through an independent third party.20 For those
carriers that use an independent third party for verification,
our rules require that the verification method confirm at least
six things:
the identity of the subscriber; confirmation
that the person on the call is authorized to
make the carrier change; confirmation that the
person on the call wants to make the change; the
names of the carriers affected by the change;
the telephone numbers to be switched; and the
types of service involved.21
Our rules also require that carriers keep audio records of the
verification for a minimum of two years.22 Finally, the
Commission's rules require that when a carrier "is selling more
than one type of telecommunications service ... that carrier must
obtain separate authorization from the subscriber for each
service sold ... Each authorization must be verified separately
from any other authorizations obtained in the same
solicitation.''
10. As discussed above, WCSS has only
acknowledged changing the preferred carrier for six of the
complainants whose allegations we are investigating. In its
response, WCSS submitted audio tapes of third-party verification
for only four of those six complainants. The verification tapes
for two complainants show that WCSS did not gather the critical
verification information that our rules require. Specifically,
the tapes for Horacio Pena and Esther Hilario do not even mention
the name of the carrier, WCSS, or the services to be switched.
Further, WCSS did not submit any tapes for two of the consumers
it admitted were switched. As stated above, our rules require
carriers to retain verification tapes for a two-year period.23
11. We conclude, therefore, that WCSS apparently
switched the preferred carriers for four of these six
complainants without authorization. The tapes that WCSS
submitted for Horacio Pena and Esther Hilario are not sufficient
to rebut the allegations in the complaints that WCSS changed
their preferred carriers without prior authorization because
they do not contain the information that our rules require.
WCSS did not produce tapes showing that it had properly verified
the authorization to change the preferred carriers of Kerri
Pedraza and Micaela Escoto. Absent audio tapes demonstrating
that WCSS properly verified these two complainants'
authorizations to change their preferred carriers, WCSS cannot
rebut the complainants' allegations that the complainants were
slammed. Furthermore, in the case of Kerri Pedraza, we find that
WCSS's employees apparently misrepresented to the consumer that
WCSS had a verification tape, but was not able to access its
system, when it subsequently admitted, in response to the Letter
of Inquiry, that the third-party verifier was unable to provide
WCSS with a tape for Kerri Pedraza.24 Finally, for the reasons
set forth in Attachment A, we find that WCSS apparently
committed nine other violations of the rules.25
IV. FORFEITURE AMOUNT
12. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act
authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to
$120,000 for each violation of the Act or of any rule,
regulation, or order issued by the Commission under the Act.26
In exercising such authority, we are required to take into
account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the
violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of
culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and
such other matters as justice may require."27 The Commission's
forfeiture guidelines currently establish a standard forfeiture
amount of $40,000 for violations of our rules and orders
regarding unauthorized changes of preferred interexchange
carriers.28 These policies and guidelines, however, include
upward adjustment criteria that warrant a higher forfeiture
amount based on the particular facts and circumstances of the
violation(s).29 These include the egregiousness of the
misconduct, ability or inability to pay, whether the violation
was intentional, whether substantial harm resulted from the
violations, history of compliance with Commission requirements,
whether the violator realized substantial economic gain from the
misconduct, and whether the violation is repeated or
continuous.30 As provided by the Commission's rules, the
Commission and its staff retain the discretion to issue a higher
or lower forfeiture, as permitted by statute.31
13. On several occasions, the Commission has sternly
warned carriers that it would take swift and decisive enforcement
action, including the imposition of substantial monetary
forfeitures, against any carrier found to have engaged in
slamming.32 In the case of Kerri Pedraza, we find that a more
significant forfeiture is warranted based on WCSS's egregious
behavior in apparently misleading the customer by telling her
that it had a third-party verification tape but could not then
access its system to provide the tape, when in fact it apparently
did not have such a tape.33 We therefore find that WCSS is
apparently liable for a forfeiture of $80,000 for the
unauthorized preferred carrier change of Kerri Pedraza, and
$40,000 for each of the other 12 unauthorized preferred carrier
changes, for a total forfeiture of $560,000.
14. WCSS will have the opportunity to submit further
evidence and arguments in response to this NAL to show that no
forfeiture should be imposed or that some lesser amount should
be assessed.34
V. CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERING CLAUSES
15. We have determined that World Communications
Satellite Systems, Inc. has apparently violated section 258 of
the Act and the Commission's preferred carrier change rules and
orders by changing the preferred telephone service carriers of 10
consumers on 13 occasions, resulting in a total proposed
forfeiture of $560,000.
16. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to
section 503(b) of Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
U.S.C. § 503(b), section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47
C.F.R. § 1.80, that World Communications Satellite Systems, Inc.
IS HEREBY NOTIFIED of an Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in the
amount of $560,000 for willful or repeated violations of section
258 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. § 258, and the Commission's preferred
carrier change rules and orders as described in the paragraphs
above. 35
17. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to section
1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.80, that within
thirty (30) days of the release of this Notice, World
Communications Satellite Systems, Inc. SHALL PAY the full amount
of the proposed forfeiture36 OR SHALL FILE a response showing why
the proposed forfeiture should not be imposed or should be
reduced.
18. The Commission will not consider reducing or
canceling a forfeiture in response to a claim of inability to pay
unless the petitioner submits: (1) federal tax returns for the
most recent three-year period; (2) financial statements prepared
according to generally accepted accounting practices (``GAAP'');
or (3) some other reliable and objective documentation that
accurately reflects the petitioner's current financial status.
Any claim of inability to pay must specifically identify the
basis for the claim by reference to the financial documentation
submitted.
19. Requests for payment of the full amount of
this Notice of Apparent Liability under an installment plan
should be sent to: Chief, Revenue and Receivables Operations
Group, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C., 20554.37
20. Under the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act
of 2002, Pub L. No. 107-198, 116 Stat. 729 (June 28, 2002), the
FCC is engaged in a two-year tracking process regarding the size
of entities involved in forfeitures. If you qualify as a small
entity and if you wish to be treated as a small entity for
tracking purposes, please so certify to us within thirty (30)
days of this NAL, either in your response to the NAL or in a
separate filing to be sent to the Telecommunications Consumers
Division. Your certification should indicate whether you,
including your parent entity and its subsidiaries, meet one of
the definitions set forth in the list provided by the FCC's
Office of Communications Business Opportunities (OCBO) set forth
in Attachment B of this Notice of Apparent Liability. This
information will be used for tracking purposes only. Your
response or failure to respond to this question will have no
effect on your rights and responsibilities pursuant to Section
503(b) of the Communications Act. If you have questions
regarding any of the information contained in Attachment B,
please contact OCBO at (202) 418-0990.
21. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that copies of this
Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture SHALL BE SENT by
certified mail to The Helein Law Group, 8180 Greensboro Drive,
Suite 700, McLean, VA 22102.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
ATTACHMENT B
FCC List of Small Entities
As described below, a ``small entity'' may be a
small organization,
a small governmental jurisdiction, or a small
business.
(1) Small Organization
Any not-for-profit enterprise that is independently owned and
operated and
is not dominant in its field.
(2) Small Governmental Jurisdiction
Governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages,
school districts, or
special districts, with a population of less than fifty
thousand.
(3) Small Business
Any business concern that is independently owned and operated
and
is not dominant in its field, and meets the pertinent size
criterion described below.
Industry Type Description of Small Business
Size Standards
Cable Services or Systems
Special Size Standard -
Cable Systems Small Cable Company has 400,000
Subscribers Nationwide or Fewer
Cable and Other Program
Distribution $12.5 Million in Annual Receipts
or Less
Open Video Systems
Common Carrier Services and Related Entities
Wireline Carriers and
Service providers
1,500 Employees or Fewer
Local Exchange Carriers,
Competitive Access
Providers, Interexchange
Carriers, Operator Service
Providers, Payphone
Providers, and Resellers
Note: With the exception of Cable Systems, all size
standards are expressed in either millions of dollars or
number of employees and are generally the average annual
receipts or the average employment of a firm. Directions for
calculating average annual receipts and average employment of
a firm can be found in
13 CFR 121.104 and 13 CFR 121.106, respectively.
International Services
International Broadcast
Stations
$12.5 Million in Annual Receipts
or Less
International Public Fixed
Radio (Public and Control
Stations)
Fixed Satellite
Transmit/Receive Earth
Stations
Fixed Satellite Very Small
Aperture Terminal Systems
Mobile Satellite Earth
Stations
Radio Determination
Satellite Earth Stations
Geostationary Space Stations
Non-Geostationary Space
Stations
Direct Broadcast Satellites
Home Satellite Dish Service
Mass Media Services
Television Services
$12 Million in Annual Receipts
or Less
Low Power Television
Services and Television
Translator Stations
TV Auxiliary, Special
Broadcast and Other Program
Distribution Services
Radio Services
$6 Million in Annual Receipts or
Less
Radio Auxiliary, Special
Broadcast and Other Program
Distribution Services
Multipoint Distribution Auction Special Size Standard -
Service Small Business is less than $40M
in annual gross revenues for
three preceding years
Wireless and Commercial Mobile Services
Cellular Licensees
1,500 Employees or Fewer
220 MHz Radio Service -
Phase I Licensees
220 MHz Radio Service - Auction special size standard -
Phase II Licensees Small Business is average gross
revenues of $15M or less for the
preceding three years (includes
affiliates and controlling
principals)
Very Small Business is average
gross revenues of $3M or less
for the preceding three years
(includes affiliates and
controlling principals)
700 MHZ Guard Band Licensees
Private and Common Carrier
Paging
Broadband Personal
Communications Services 1,500 Employees or Fewer
(Blocks A, B, D, and E)
Broadband Personal Auction special size standard -
Communications Services Small Business is $40M or less
(Block C) in annual gross revenues for
three previous calendar years
Very Small Business is average
gross revenues of $15M or less
for the preceding three calendar
years (includes affiliates and
persons or entities that hold
interest in such entity and
their affiliates)
Broadband Personal
Communications Services
(Block F)
Narrowband Personal
Communications Services
Rural Radiotelephone Service 1,500 Employees or Fewer
Air-Ground Radiotelephone
Service
800 MHz Specialized Mobile Auction special size standard -
Radio Small Business is $15M or less
average annual gross revenues
for three preceding calendar
years
900 MHz Specialized Mobile
Radio
Private Land Mobile Radio 1,500 Employees or Fewer
Amateur Radio Service N/A
Aviation and Marine Radio
Service 1,500 Employees or Fewer
Fixed Microwave Services
Small Business is 1,500
Public Safety Radio Services employees or less
Small Government Entities has
population of less than 50,000
persons
Wireless Telephony and
Paging and Messaging 1,500 Employees or Fewer
Personal Radio Services N/A
Offshore Radiotelephone 1,500 Employees or Fewer
Service
Wireless Communications Small Business is $40M or less
Services average annual gross revenues
for three preceding years
Very Small Business is average
gross revenues of $15M or less
for the preceding three years
39 GHz Service
Auction special size standard
(1996) -
Multipoint Distribution Small Business is $40M or less
Service average annual gross revenues
for three preceding calendar
years
Prior to Auction -
Small Business has annual
revenue of $12.5M or less
Multichannel Multipoint
Distribution Service $12.5 Million in Annual Receipts
or Less
Instructional Television
Fixed Service
Auction special size standard
(1998) -
Local Multipoint Small Business is $40M or less
Distribution Service average annual gross revenues
for three preceding years
Very Small Business is average
gross revenues of $15M or less
for the preceding three years
First Auction special size
standard (1994) -
Small Business is an entity
that, together with its
affiliates, has no more than a
218-219 MHZ Service $6M net worth and, after federal
income taxes (excluding
carryover losses) has no more
than $2M in annual profits each
year for the previous two years
New Standard -
Small Business is average gross
revenues of $15M or less for the
preceding three years (includes
affil iates and persons or
entities that hold interest in
such entity and their
affiliates)
Very Small Business is average
gross revenues of $3M or less
for the preceding three years
(includes affiliates and persons
or entities that hold interest
in such entity and their
affiliates)
Satellite Master Antenna
Television Systems $12.5 Million in Annual Receipts
or Less
24 GHz - Incumbent Licensees 1,500 Employees or Fewer
24 GHz - Future Licensees Small Business is average gross
revenues of $15M or less for the
preceding three years (includes
affiliates and persons or
entities that hold interest in
such entity and their
affiliates)
Very Small Business is average
gross revenues of $3M or less
for the preceding three years
(includes affiliates and persons
or entities that hold interest
in such entity and their
affiliates)
Miscellaneous
On-Line Information Services $18 Million in Annual Receipts
or Less
Radio and Television
Broadcasting and Wireless
Communications Equipment 750 Employees or Fewer
Manufacturers
Audio and Video Equipment
Manufacturers
Telephone Apparatus
Manufacturers (Except 1,000 Employees or Fewer
Cellular)
Medical Implant Device 500 Employees or Fewer
Manufacturers
Hospitals $29 Million in Annual Receipts
or Less
Nursing Homes $11.5 Million in Annual Receipts
or Less
Hotels and Motels $6 Million in Annual Receipts or
Less
Tower Owners (See Lessee's Type of Business)
_________________________
1See 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(4)(A). The Commission has authority
under this section of the Act to assess a forfeiture penalty
against a common carrier if the Commission determines that the
carrier has "willfully or repeatedly" failed to comply with the
provisions of the Act or with any rule, regulation, or order
issued by the Commission under the Act. For a violation to be
willful, it need not be intentional. Southern California
Broadcasting Co., 6 FCC Rcd 4387 (1991); see also Implementation
of the Subscriber Carrier Selection Changes Provisions of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996; Policies and Rules Concerning
Unauthorized Changes of Consumers Long Distance Carriers, Second
Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 1508, 1539 (1998) (1998 Second
Report and Order).
247 U.S.C. § 258.
3 ``Slamming'' is the submission or execution of an
unauthorized change in a subscriber's selection of a provider of
telecommunications service. See generally 47 C.F.R.
§§ 64.1100?64.1195.
4 WCSS's principal place of business is 4301 Brittany Trail
Drive, Champaign, Illinois 61822. It is a Virginia corporation,
wholly owned by Caterina Bergeron. Letter from Charles H.
Helein, counsel for WCSS, to Peter Wolfe, FCC (September 16,
2003)(WCSS Response).
5 See Implementation of the Subscriber Carrier Selection Changes
Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, First Order on
Reconsideration, 15 FCC Rcd 8158, 8169-79 (2000) (establishing
guidelines for state administration of the slamming rules).
6 The complainants whose allegations form the basis of this NAL
are Micaela Escoto, Esther Hilario, Charles Johnson Finance, Lisa
and Marco Martinez, Kerri Pedraza, Katia Paredes, Horacio Pena,
Marybel Ramirez, Aurilia Ruiz, and Yohana Saucedo.
7 Complaint dated February 27, 2003, from Kerri Pedraza, filed
with the Texas Public Utility Commission.
8 Declaration of Kerri Pedraza, dated June 24, 2003. In its
response to our staff's Letter of Inquiry, WCSS stated that its
third-party verifier, Federal Verification Company, was unable to
provide a verification tape for Kerri Pedraza.
9 Complaint dated May 7, 2003, from Horacio Pena, filed with the
Texas Public Utility Commission.
10 Declaration of Horacio Pena, dated July 15, 2003.
11 Letter from Colleen K. Heitkamp, Chief, Telecommunications
Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau, FCC, to Mary White, WCSS
(July 15, 2003) (``Letter of Inquiry''). On September 9, 2003,
the Enforcement Bureau released an NAL against WCSS for
apparently willfully and repeatedly violating a Commission order
by failing to respond to the Letter of Inquiry.
12 ``BTNs'' refers to the consumers' billed telephone numbers.
13 Letter from Colleen K. Heitkamp, Chief, Telecommunications
Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau, FCC, to SBC
Communications, Inc. (``SBC'') (July 15, 2003); Letter from
Colleen K. Heitkamp, Chief, Telecommunications Consumers
Division, Enforcement Bureau, FCC, to Suzanne Carmel, Manager,
Regulatory Affairs, Verizon (July 15, 2003).
14 Letter from Suzanne Carmel, Manager, Regulatory Affairs,
Verizon, to Peter G. Wolfe , FCC (Aug. 13, 2003); Letter from
Terri L. Hoskins, SBC, to Peter G. Wolfe, FCC (Aug. 15, 2003).
Because SBC has asked for confidential treatment of its responses
to the Letter of Inquiry (other than with respect to WCSS) based
on the claim that the information was customer proprietary
network information subject to Section 222 of the Act, 47 U.S.C.
§ 222, and that request remains pending, to protect the consumer
information, we will reflect the responses from SBC in Attachment
A, which we are keeping confidential at this time, except with
respect to WCSS. See E-Mail from Terri L. Hoskins, Senior
Counsel, SBC, to Peter Wolfe, FCC (Dec. 8, 2003)(on file).
Because of the interrelationship of the information, we are also
including Verizon's information in Attachment A.
15 Letter from Colleen K. Heitkamp, Chief, Telecommunications
Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau, FCC, to Joyce Bullard,
Qwest Communications Corporation (``Qwest'') (Aug. 19, 2003).
16 See E-Mail from Kathryn Krause, Senior Attorney, Qwest, to
Peter Wolfe, FCC (Dec. 9, 2003)(on file).
17 Letter from Joyce Bullard, Qwest , to Peter G. Wolfe, FCC
(Sept. 22, 2003).
18 47 U.S.C. § 258.
19 Id. § 64.1120(a)(1).
20 Id. § 64.1120(c).
21 Id. § 64.1120(c)(3)(iii).
22 47 C.F.R. § 64.1120(c)(3)(iv).
23 47 C.F.R. § 64.1120(c) (3)(iv).
24 Declaration of Kerri Pedraza; WCSS Response at 4.
25 Attachment A.
26 Section 503(b)(2)(B) provides for forfeitures up to $100,000
for each violation or a maximum of $1,000,000 for each continuing
violation by common carriers or an applicant for any common
carrier license, permit, certificate or similar instrument. 47
U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(B). The Commission amended its rules by
adding a new subsection to its monetary forfeiture provisions
that incorporates by reference the inflation adjustment
requirements contained in the Debt Collection Improvement Act of
1996 (DCIA), Pub L. No. 104-134, § 31001, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996).
Thus, the maximum statutory forfeiture per violation pursuant to
section 503(b)(2)(B) increased from $100,000 to $120,000. See
Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and
Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd.
18,221 (2000).
27 See 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(D); see also The Commission's
Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the
Commission's Rules, 12 FCC Rcd 17,087 (1997) (Forfeiture Policy
Statement); recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999).
28 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(4).
29 See 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(D); see also Forfeiture Policy
Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17100-01 (1997); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(4).
30 See 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(D); see also Forfeiture Policy
Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17100-01 (1997); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(4).
31 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(4).
32 Brittan Communications International Corp., 15 FCC Rcd 4852
(2000); Amer-I-Net Services Corp., 15 FCC Rcd 3118 (2000); All
American Telephone Company, Inc., 13 FCC Rcd 15040 (1998).
33 Declaration of Kerri Pedraza; WCSS Response at 4.
34 See 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(4)(C); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(f)(3).
35 See 47 C.F.R.§§ 64.1120; see also 1998 Second Report and
Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 1508; 1997 FNPRM & Order on Reconsideration,
12 FCC Rcd at 10,674.
36 The forfeiture amount should be paid by check or money order
drawn to the order of the Federal Communications Commission.
WCSS should include the reference ``NAL/Acct. No. 200332170009 ''
on its check or money order. Such remittance must be mailed to
Forfeiture Collection Section, Finance Branch, Federal
Communications Commission, P.O. Box. 73482, Chicago, Illinois
60673-7482. Requests for full payment under an installment plan
should be sent to: Chief, Credit and Debt Management Center, 445
12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554. See 47 C.F.R. §
1.1914.
37 47 C.F.R. § 1.1914.